[FRIAM] From Merle--AI News

[glen]

Well, there's an argument that the Search usage pattern is incompatible with next token predictors. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/lawyer-chatgpt-research-avianca-statement-ai-risk-openai-deepmind. But maybe it depends on what one's searching for?

On 6/19/23 09:43, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> There probably already is a law, but no one knows what it is?  The law suffers from the same curse as the scientific literature, most of it gets ignored because no one has the time to read it all.
> 
> So maybe that's what LLM's are for.  We can set one to read the collected works of Carl Friederich Gauss, and we'll finally be able to find out how much of mathematics he invented/discovered.  We can set one to read the laws of each podunk in the US and find out exactly what's permitted and what's forbidden and what's hopelessly confused.
> 
> -- rec --
> 
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:25 AM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     glen wrote:
>      > IDK. The implication that we already have laws that cover (80%?) of
>      > the use cases for new tech we, as a society, want to discourage, is a
>      > good default. It resists the "there ought to be a law" sensibility
>      > held by old people and curmudgeons everywhere. And it keeps our legal
>      > system a little more adaptive than it would be were we to burden it
>      > with even more persnickety case-by-case rulings.
>      >
>      >
>     I share your feeling that "there oughtta be a law!" is a red-herring,
>     though I don't know about it being that tightly coupled with "old
>     people"...  my experience is that people whose experiences and
>     sensibilities which are much different from mine are more apt to express
>     those sentiments, but I think this related to confirmation bias.  If
>     they are shaking their fist with "there oughtta be a law!" sentiments
>     about something I feel the same way about it goes right past me, but if
>     it is somehow "off" from my alignments it grates.   I find young people
>     (when I was in HS, my civics/history/government/etc classes were filled
>     with them) full of the more egregious phrase "that's ILLEGAL!" in place
>     of "that OFFENDS ME!".   I try to hear "there oughtta be a law" as
>     pining for a new and relevant heuristic where the old one(s) don't work
>     (well)?
> 
> 
>      > The point being that behaviorism is insidious. You are not a shallow
>      > narrative comprising Instagram "stories" in the same way ChatGPT is
>      > not an organism. But it's not merely behaviorism. There's a similar
>      > problem with the concept of an integrated personality
>      > <https://dictionary.apa.org/integration <https://dictionary.apa.org/integration>>.
> 
>     I identify as a self-organized/ing complex adaptive system coupled with
>     other complex systems in such a way as to be an all-subsuming (read
>     panpsychic) system of systems (nearly-decomposable in Herb Simon's
>     sensibilites).   Or in Schwietzer's sensibilities: "I am life which
>     wills to live amongst life which wills to live".   Does the biosphere of
>     Earth "will to live"? (and in the image of Gaia, does it nurture us, or
>     in the image of Medea, does it seek to shed itself of the blight which
>     is us?)   How about the solar system or the galaxies or galactic
>     clusters?   Maybe not even as much as a jellyfish or an amoeba does...
>     but not less than a grain of sand or am molecule or an interstellar photon?
> 
>     Depending on the focus/locus of my awareness in a given moment, I am
>     likely identified differently... like whether I'm having coffee with an
>     old friend, looking through a telescope or microscope, or blathering on
>     on FriAM...   an analog to glen's "homunculii"?   I think I can be
>     episodic and diachronic, or is it only an episodic identity who can
>     actually imagine both while diachronics are forever shut off from the
>     experience of being episodic?  Or is it an illusion like "free will"
>     (pervasive and undeniable, yet nevertheless an illusion)?
> 
>     Is this not the point of holidays like Juneteenth (not formed but maybe
>     exploited by Hallmark?), to focus our awareness (and therefore
>     identity?) on a subset of "life which wills to live" that we normally do
>     not (fathers day, juneteenth, independence day, thanksgiving, new years,
>     etc.)?
> 


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ